from the well,-of-course dept

I mean, who's going to say no to that? Of course Google should try to prevent terrorism. Everyone should try to prevent terrorism if they can. So I was curious what the article was actually about if it would even bring that up... And it's not about Google preventing terrorism at all. It's about the misguided notion that Google should block any videos from those claiming to be part of terrorist groups, which is a totally different thing:

That's what one long-time monitor of online jihadists is arguing. "If a certain percentage of Islamist sympathizers are radicalized, in part, online, then it stands to reason that more eyeballs that are exposed to violent Islamist propaganda would eventually translate into more would-be terrorists," writes "Rusty Shackleford," the pseudonymous patron of The Jawa Report. "Which is why even though YouTube has been a boon in helping law enforcement agents detect, post hoc, would-be terrorists it has been a bane in that far more Muslims today can easily access violent Islamist propaganda."

Of course, this isn't even a new issue. Two years ago, Senator Joe Lieberman grandstanded on the issue, and eventually got YouTube/Google to agree to ban such videos if they "advertise" terrorism or "extremist causes."

The whole thing seemed ridiculous at the time. As the guy above even admits, these videos are helpful to law enforcement. The idea that people are becoming radicalized because they watch a YouTube video seems pretty unlikely in most cases anyway. These videos are preaching to the choir, not converting kids. Besides, blocking these videos only gives the folks behind them more of a martyr feeling about how people are trying to hold them down and don't want to hear what they're saying. The idea that blocking these videos is "preventing terrorism" seems quite unlikely. But using the videos to actually monitor terrorists and help law enforcement seems like a much more important and useful task.